¼ of the way around the planet

[George K]

@catseye3 said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

You may as well say the Joint Chiefs are not part of the administration.

Yes. They are not. They report to administration, and respond to administration.

But they are not part of the administration.

They are not (or supposed to not be) political.

[Mik]

Pretty tone deaf.

[Aqua Letifer]

@mik said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

Pretty tone deaf.

Very.

I'm starting to really not like that guy.

[George K]

@aqua-letifer said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

I'm starting to really not like that guy.

Starting?

STARTING???

[Catseye3]

@george-k

Wiki: "In American usage, the term [Administration] generally refers to the executive branch under a specific president . . .

And:

"The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
. . . the president has broad authority to conduct foreign relations, is generally considered to have the sole power of diplomatic recognition, and is the United States' chief diplomat, . . . "

[George K]

@catseye3 said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

@george-k

Wiki: "In American usage, the term [Administration] generally refers to the executive branch under a specific president . . .

And:

"The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
. . . the president has broad authority to conduct foreign relations, is generally considered to have the sole power of diplomatic recognition, and is the United States' chief diplomat, . . . "

I'll concede your semantic description of "executive branch."

So, let's play a thought experiment.

The remains of 200 soldiers killed in concentration camps in WWII Germany are repatriated to the US. Their remains are sent to Washington DC, and the administration sends 2nd Lt Fred Johnson to receive them.

This is a ridiculous extreme, but nevertheless it's the same thing.

The point is that one country sent its president, whereas our country couldn't muster a representative from its government, instead sending a career soldier.

[LuFins Dad]

hell, the President or VP should have been there even if the President of South Korea wasn’t involved..,

I’ll put this on the Chief of Staff, though. It’s their responsibility to make sure these type of screwups don’t occur.

[George K]

@lufins-dad said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

It’s their responsibility to make sure these type of screwups don’t occur.

The French ambassador laughed.

[Catseye3]

@george-k said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

I'll concede your semantic description of "executive branch."
So, let's play a thought experiment.
The remains of 200 soldiers killed in concentration camps in WWII Germany are repatriated to the US. Their remains are sent to Washington DC, and the administration sends 2nd Lt Fred Johnson to receive them.
This is a ridiculous extreme, but nevertheless it's the same thing.
The point is that one country sent its president, whereas our country couldn't muster a representative from its government, instead sending a career soldier.

It isn't a "semantic description." It's what it is. Biden's Secretary of State is part of the administratiion, he is the voice of the administration for issues of state, he responds to those issues for the administration, he advises the president on those issues. For all practical purposes, he is considered part of the administration by all other countries.

Officials from State and Defense are sent all over the world for various purposes all the time.

And yes, your experiment is a ridiculous extreme for two reasons: 1. The Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command can't be compared to a 2nd lieutenant, and 2. Nobody would ever send a 2nd lieutenant on such a mission.

I'm not defending Biden. Damfino if he belonged at the ceremony or not. But the Indo-Pacific Commander, a high-ranking officer, was there as his representative, and as such was not entirely out of line -- particularly since the ceremony was to commemorate military personnel.

[George K]

@catseye3 said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

t isn't a "semantic description." It's what it is. Biden's Secretary of State is part of the administratiion, he is the voice of the administration for issues of state, he responds to those issues for the administration, he advises the president on those issues. For all practical purposes, he is considered part of the administration by all other countries.

Yes, of course. SecState is part of the administration.

Officials from State and Defense are sent all over the world for various purposes all the time.

But soldiers are not officials of the Departments of Defense, and certainly not officials of the Department of State.

And yes, your experiment is a ridiculous extreme for two reasons: 1. The Commander of the Indo-Pacific Command can't be compared to a 2nd lieutenant, and 2. Nobody would ever send a 2nd lieutenant on such a mission.

So, we're arguing about price, then? My example was extreme to make a point. There is a line between soldiers and the government, and it exists for a very good reason. Soldiers fight to defend the nation, whereas the members of the administration represent the people. The fact that no representative of the people was there is, well, sad.

Good that a soldier was there to represent his fallen comrades.

Sad that no one from the people was there to do the same.

I'm not defending Biden. Damfino if he belonged at the ceremony or not. But the Indo-Pacific Commander, a high-ranking officer was there as his representative, and as such was not entirely out of line.

No, not out of line by any means. But it's not enough, and a soldier does not represent the administration. Or at least he shouldn't.

[Catseye3]

@george-k

Fine. You win. I'm danged if anybody around the world would split that hair, but whatever.

[Mik]

@george-k said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

@lufins-dad said in ¼ of the way around the planet:

It’s their responsibility to make sure these type of screwups don’t occur.

The French ambassador laughed.

From his home in Paris.